WATCH: Kermit Gosnell's House of Horrors

Full Transcript:

I have to tell you, this is the most disturbing show that I think I’ve ever done.  This is some of the most disturbing information that I have seen and some of the most disturbing pictures I have ever seen, and I, you know, the last five years have studied the Holocaust and Auschwitz, so I’m not shocked by an awful lot anymore, unfortunately.  But I am shocked by what I’m going to show you tonight.

The old saying in TV news is “if it bleeds, it leads,” right?  But in a trial of abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the media has shown sudden, incredible restraint at best, despite this, a 261-page report from a grand jury that is so shocking, horrifying, tragic, gut wrenching, tells you an awful lot about who we’re dealing with, not just with the doctor, but also society.  It is filled with details that make Hannibal Lecter look like Mother Teresa, and the media is just not interested.

I mean, they couldn’t get enough of Sandra Fluke’s plea for government-funded condoms.  They went full-throttle after the Susan G. Komen Foundation said they’re not going to give money for the abortion clinics of Planned Parenthood.  Tonight’s episode is going to make you just so proud to support Susan G. Komen.

Somehow, the news media just couldn’t see their way to news, any worthiness of a story about this man, Kermit Gosnell, and his murder clinic.  It was described with a TV-friendly headline “house of horrors.”  That’s what they call it in the grand jury report.  For over 20 years, Dr. Gosnell ran a multimillion-dollar abortion mill.  He got rich off routinely snipping the necks of the babies.  Don’t put this up yet, please.

I am going to show you beginning here some horrifying pictures.  This is your last warning to get the kids out of the room, stop, watch it later, or turn this off, but I think it is important, especially if you’re on the fence about whether it’s a baby or not.  Go ahead and show this.  Snipping the necks of babies…this is the back of a neck of one of the babies, and I’ll tell you which baby this was here in just a minute.  But this is the back of a baby’s head.

This was Gosnell’s term for jamming scissors, snipping, scissors into the back of the neck and cutting their spinal cord.  He also severed the babies’ feet, and he kept the feet in jars in the office.  Witnesses testified that the babies were moving, they were breathing, they were screeching.  Another witness testified they personally saw the doctor snip the necks of more than 30 babies.  Yet another said she had to kill the baby that was delivered in a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors.

He literally was able to convince people, and it doesn’t seem apparently that it was that hard to convince people in Philadelphia that worked for him that it was okay to kill a living, breathing, moving baby because, “It’s the baby’s reflexes.”  That’s all.  “It’s not really moving.”  Don’t worry about it.  As if killing the baby moments before in the womb was somehow or another better, so I guess you’ve already made your line.

We are talking about the cold-blooded murder of innocent babies.  Many were 20, or 25, or even 30 weeks along in the pregnancy.  I have to tell you, I see some of these pictures, and I see my children.  Now, that’s well past the 24-week limit.  One 30-week-old baby he aborted was nothing more than a punch line to him.  He joked that the baby was so big he could’ve walked her to the bus stop – that baby.

That baby was breathing and moving when born.  And he said, boy, your baby is so big, he could walk me to the bus stop, and he snipped the neck.  He took this baby and then just matter-of-factly threw him in a shoebox with the arms and legs lifelessly hanging over the edges.  This is Baby Boy B.  They found his body frozen in a one-gallon spring water bottle.  He was at least 28 weeks when he was killed.

“Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord.”  She did it just the way she had seen the good doctor do it so many times.  And then the report goes on to the Sunday babies, the Sunday babies, “’the really big ones,’ that even he was afraid to perform in front of others.”  By the way, did I tell you that this is a black doctor, and he wasn’t doing this to white women because he said that white women would most likely complain and so he’d get in trouble.  So he was just keeping it to African-American and minority women.  This was Margaret Sanger’s dream come true, Progressives.

He said the really big ones he was afraid to perform in front of others.  These abortions were scheduled for Sundays – oh, he stayed with the Lord’s day – a day when the clinic was closed and none of the regular employees were present.  The only person allowed to assist with these special cases was his wife.  The files for these patients were not kept at the office.  Gosnell took them home with him and disposed of them.  We may never know the details of these cases.  We do know, however, that during the rest of the week, Gosnell routinely aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh month of pregnancy.  The Sunday babies were bigger still.

They described the facility as – as quite interesting, “scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.  It was a baby charnel house.”  He slaughtered hundreds, possibly thousands of children.  This is the biggest, bloodiest, mass murderer in the history of our country.  This guy is far, far worse than anything, anything that Jeffrey Dahmer did, far worse, any of the mass murderers, serial killers.

The media doesn’t cover it.  Well, they didn’t cover it until they were shamed into it.  The media would be more interested, I guess, if he would’ve used an AR-15 to ensure fetal demise as he called it.  About the only media attention was this story reporting on how little attention the story was actually receiving.  A columnist from Bucks County, PA, J.D. Mullane, one of the few actually covering the event.  He snapped, this is the most damning photo for the press at a recent courtroom hearing.

Those seats are reserved for the various members of the press, three rows of seats to accommodate 40 reporters.  Mullane was the only reporter to attend, along with one from the New York Times who showed up later in the day and stayed for maybe five minutes.  The trial began nearly a month ago on March 18, but NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, no, they didn’t cover that at all.  They covered it last week.  The question is why?

Well, I want you to know I don’t think it’s some conspiracy theory to avoid the story or anything like that.  I think it’s a lack of intuitive interest from the press that betrays their beliefs.  You see, abortion is not wrong to the people in the press, it’s not wrong.  I mean, it’s not really a big deal.  The White House press conference today, Jay Carney was asked about Gosnell, and here’s what he said.  I want you to listen to this carefully.

Jay Carney:  I’ll say two things. One, the president is aware of this. Two, the president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won’t as well.

Oh my gosh, how about Trayvon?  Let me ask you this – boy would I like to use some names.  This president during the health care debate accused doctors of cutting the feet off of patients for an extra 30 grand.  Do you remember that?  And I said where is the evidence?  Give me one case, where’s the evidence?  Nothing, and the press went on and reported those lies over and over again.  And yet he has nothing to say about this doctor who literally has feet in jars, and the president can’t speak out about it.

Oh, he does care about healthcare so much, doesn’t he?  He cares about the American people and making sure that we don’t have another Mengele.  You see, the left isn’t outraged that 25 week-year-old babies are terminated or 25-week babies are terminated, because it’s completely legal the week before.  So if you’re totally cool with an unborn baby being terminated as you would call it at 24 weeks, why are you appalled when they’re terminated seven days later?

Perhaps the scariest part of this entire story, the thing that concerns me the most, is what Gosnell convinced others to do.  He convinced people, apparently it wasn’t too hard either, to look at a living, crying, moving baby and slit its neck and murder it.  “Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings.’  Sometimes if Gosnell was unavailable, the ‘snipping’ was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff…”  Really, you go from licking stamps to killing babies? 

“Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all.”  Well, of course they didn’t think it was murder.  Of course they didn’t think it was murder.  They’re a week late.  What have they been indoctrinated with for so long?  That’s not a life in the womb; that’s a woman’s choice.  She can do whatever she wants with it.  We’ve just heard over and over and over again how it’s just nothing but tissue in there.  It’s just a collection of cells.  MSNBC calls that a thing.

Well, if you can convince someone to murder an infant in cold blood, of course this is a thing.  Look at the picture.  That ain’t a thing, man.  If you can convince somebody that you can go in and kill that child, a woman can kill that child, and then just, I guess, brush it off and call for the next patient, if you can do that, what can’t you convince them to do?

Let me tell you something, this is a result of a culture that does not value life at all.  For over two decades, hear me, 20 years, Kermit Gosnell convinced people to slit the necks of perfectly healthy babies, several per day, week after week after week, year after year, baby after baby after baby.

Let’s just take this as – the testimony says an average of 15 a day.  Let’s just look for the first decade.  Fifteen a day, that means this man killed more children in a single month than all of the school shootings in the history of America combined, and no one in the media says anything.  But that’s only because they care so much about children.  We have to do something for the collective, you know?

I lived in Philadelphia.  I live in Texas for a reason, but believe me, we’re headed for troubled times.  When a society does not react to these kinds of things, there’s trouble.  When I tell you there will be stories coming out like this over the elderly or the handicapped, go ahead, mock me – the mentally ill, anybody whose quality of life a Progressive deems inadequate or if there’s an emergency, of course.

We’re already talking about – Krugman admitted the death panels, and nobody in the media said a word, and they’re already doing this in the UK.  Now, of course, they’re putting their elderly, 130,000 a year are put on the pathway to death, the death pathway.  Well, it’s being done for a very good reason, of course, out of compassion.  Well, hello, Dr. Mengele. 

Today is the anniversary of the birth and death of Corrie ten Boom.  Please, please read about Corrie ten Boom.  Please, reevaluate, because we need to stand.  The media is naturally recoiling from this story because it shines a bright light on exactly what it means to be pro-choice.  Sure, most abortion doctors aren’t as flippant about it.  They kill the baby in the womb so you don’t, you know, you don’t see the baby moving around and crying.  It doesn’t cause any trauma.  But whether this is in the house of horrors or in the best hospital in America, the end result is the same, a real child dies.  A life ends.  That’s it, period.

You can call it whatever you want, but that’s the truth, and the truth shall set you free.  Now that people are catching on, the media is scrambling to cover its tracks.  How about the hospitals, are they covering their tracks?  Because hospitals were involved in this.  This one I love.  This one is from NBC news:  “The story is on our radar.”  Really?  How about this from CBS:  “CBS has been working the story...”  Oh, I bet you have.

CBS Evening News – Sunday, first time they reported on it.  Washington Post got pissy.  They admitted that he wasn’t aware of the story.  Watch this one, wasn’t aware of the story until the readers began e-mailing about it.  “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be, nor can any of us,” says Martin Baron, Washington Post Executive Director.  Oh well, thank you.  You sound humble.

Even Headline News, a network that I believe is 80% Nancy Grace and the other court-related shows, they’re not even bothering to cover this case.  Well, this is a fascinating case.  In the interest of being fair and straight up with you, we didn’t cover it, either, at least not right away.  I don’t have affiliate stations in every market in the country.  I don’t have a massive staff.  It’s our job to get it right.

It’s our job, so I won’t use that staff or anything else as an excuse.  That is why when the trial started on March 18, TheBlaze didn’t have any coverage of it until March 19, the day after the trial began.  Where were the reporters that I know for a fact read TheBlaze every single day?  Where were they?

At the risk of sounding crass, help us grow.  We will not miss the story of the biggest serial killer in American history, and for another thing, people don’t progress.  They might as individuals over their lifetime, but we all start at the beginning with good or evil, and it is up to each of us as individuals to decide, not the collective.  The collective doesn’t decide.  We don’t progress as a collective; we do as individuals.

Tell me, tell me this isn’t the American Mengele, and no other network would dare say that, no other network.  Every other network would chastise me for saying it on the air.  Amen, brother, this guy’s a monster.  And nobody will say it because whether it’s left or right, you are not getting the truth.  You’re getting a political agenda, and that agenda too many times is the collective right over the individual right.

And you’ll notice when the media will tell this story, they will not show you the pictures I showed.  And maybe they’re making the right decision, but I don’t think so, because those pictures will make you say, Who the hell in the collective is standing up for the individual child?

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.